Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 320

Thread: Talk on Ancient Italian/Roman DNA over in Stanford.

  1. #76
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Posts
    940
    Points
    16,443
    Level
    38
    Points: 16,443, Level: 38
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 7
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alyan View Post
    DNA from the Ostia crypt should be a good representative of Roman/Iron Age Central Italian DNA.
    Ostia was Rome's seaport (along with Isola Sacra and Portus), how it can be representative of Roman/Iron Age Central Italian DNA?

  2. #77
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,624
    Points
    24,107
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,107, Level: 47
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 443
    Overall activity: 35.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    It does seem like there was a separate class of Northern Italian-like people though. Also obviously though, not Northern European-like.
    Oh, come on, there aren't enough samples to talk of a "separate class of Northern Italian-like people". The only thing that can be said is that there were Northern Italian-like INDIVIDUALS in Central Italy at that time. Not surprising considering how integrated economically and socially the Italian peninsula had become. There is nothing to suggest they were a "class" of their own. They might just have come from a place with a different genetic structure from the local one, nothing else.

  3. #78
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,080


    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Megalophias View Post
    There are 3 Cardial Pottery culture samples from Croatia (I3433, I3947, I3948) who are plain EEF with no extra CHG or anything. I don't know if this is the same group you are thinking of.
    True, and they seem to have been typical Y DNA C and G2a (like the Anatolian hunter-gatherers from which EEF descends), but perhaps this is from heavy mixing with Balkan EEFs? I mean what other hypothesis is there for Iran_N in EARLY Neolithic Italy if not from Cardium ware?

  4. #79
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,080


    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: United Kingdom



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Oh, come on, there aren't enough samples to talk of a "separate class of Northern Italian-like people". The only thing that can be said is that there were Northern Italian-like INDIVIDUALS in Central Italy at that time. Not surprising considering how integrated economically and socially the Italian peninsula had become. There is nothing to suggest they were a "class" of their own. They might just have come from a place with a different genetic structure from the local one, nothing else.
    Why were they different genetically from most of the population then? The idea that they were migrants from elsewhere, yet remained a separate group throughout the Iron Age and Classical period makes no sense to me without them being a been a class of their own - if not elites, at least cultural conservatives.

  5. #80
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,482
    Points
    232,948
    Level
    100
    Points: 232,948, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    The "first wave" of farmers to leave the Near East left from the land where southeastern Turkey meets Syria, so, the juncture between Anatolia and the Levant, although those terms are irrelevant in the time periods we're discussing. We know they went to Cyprus. Perhaps they went on to Crete and then Italy. Or perhaps some of the Peloponnese Neolithic people went on to Italy. We just don't know yet.

    Certainly, Cardial has nothing to do with Mesopotamia.




    As for "classes" in Roman society, of course they existed. There were Patricians and Plebeians after all, but even by the time of Caesar that was all disappearing.

    Caesar's aunt Julia (the Julii were among the elite of the elite in terms of patrician ancestry) married Marius, an upstart of rural equestrian origin, and Marcus Agrippa, who was lieutenant, friend, and son-on-in law of Augustus was of humble plebeian origin from the countryside.

    Ancient Rome was not ancient India or even the Britain of the 19th century.

    They also weren't necessarily big on blood tie genealogy. Adoption was a very important part of Roman family life.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Marius


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Vipsanius_Agrippa


    For that matter, Marc Anthony was a plebeian, and again, colleague and friend of Caesar, and married into the imperial family.
    Please check the info for Cardial and check the dates. If anything it would be from the Levant.

    Cardial is distinct from Peloponnese and Balkan Neolithic. Where the Italian Neolithic fits we don't yet know. It may have been an offshoot of the Peloponnese Neolithic or it may have been separate. We just don't know yet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardium_pottery


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  6. #81
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered10000 Experience Points
    Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    2,232
    Points
    15,486
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,486, Level: 37
    Level completed: 80%, Points required for next Level: 164
    Overall activity: 33.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    Earlier in the thread, its been pointed out that we don't have isotope information to tell the locals from the migrants so we can't draw any conclusion about anything yet. We don't know where they're from.

    (yes some samples are obviously from elsewhere like the Middle Eastern ones)
    Depending upon the Time-Period, so much grain and other foods were imported, from Egypt too, especially in Rome.
    Most olive oil came from Spain, wine from Greece (that explains it, ;) ), and so on.

    if they run your Isotope, you’ll be from Chihuahua.

  7. #82
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,080


    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Please check the info for Cardial and check the dates. If anything it would be from the Levant.

    Cardial is distinct from Peloponnese and Balkan Neolithic. Where the Italian Neolithic fits we don't yet know. It may have been an offshoot of the Peloponnese Neolithic or it may have been separate. We just don't know yet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardium_pottery
    The only reason I said Upper Euphrates rather than Levant was because Levant_N doesn't seem to appear, so I fudged it a bit (there really isn't much in it between the Northern Levant and Upper Euphrates though). In any case, Italian Neolithic = Cardial, and that implies Cardial had Iran_N. Those Cardial samples from Croatia do seem to be typical EEFs, BUT sample I3948 had Y DNA E1b1b1a1b1 and mtDNA N1a1, which is so clearly Levantine. In that case, the lack of West Asian admix implies dilution from mixing with nearby EEFs (but this may have occurred later in Italy, explaining the Early Neolithic Iran_N, though the lack of Levant_N then doesn't make sense).

    R1b-V88 seems to be associated with Cardial ware, so I wonder how it got from the Mesolithic Balkans to the Levant (where it still exists today). I can't think of any migration that could explain R1b-V88 in the Levant over 8000 years ago, so maybe its Levantine presence is unrelated to Cardial? Maciamo implied a migration of R1b-V88 into Africa with cattle, but R1b-V88 so far only seems to be associated with Epigravettian-derived fishermen.

    I really don't understand how R1b-V88 made it to the Levant actually, anybody have ideas? I'm guessing it actually arrived from Africa, and that it arrived in Africa from Tunisia via Cardial Ware (and its presence in Cardial Ware was from being "picked up" in the Balkans)

  8. #83
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,482
    Points
    232,948
    Level
    100
    Points: 232,948, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    The only reason I said Upper Euphrates rather than Levant was because Levant_N doesn't seem to appear, so I fudged it a bit (there really isn't much in it between the Northern Levant and Upper Euphrates though). In any case, Italian Neolithic = Cardial, and that implies Cardial had Iran_N. Those Cardial samples from Croatia do seem to be typical EEFs, BUT sample I3948 had Y DNA E1b1b1a1b1 and mtDNA N1a1, which is so clearly Levantine. In that case, the lack of West Asian admix implies dilution from mixing with nearby EEFs (but this may have occurred later in Italy, explaining the Early Neolithic Iran_N, though the lack of Levant_N then doesn't make sense).

    R1b-V88 seems to be associated with Cardial ware, so I wonder how it got from the Mesolithic Balkans to the Levant (where it still exists today). I can't think of any migration that could explain R1b-V88 in the Levant over 8000 years ago, so maybe its Levantine presence is unrelated to Cardial? Maciamo implied a migration of R1b-V88 into Africa with cattle, but R1b-V88 so far only seems to be associated with Epigravettian-derived fishermen.

    I really don't understand how R1b-V88 made it to the Levant actually, anybody have ideas? I'm guessing it actually arrived from Africa, and that it arrived in Africa from Tunisia via Cardial Ware (and its presence in Cardial Ware was from being "picked up" in the Balkans)
    That's it: when you run amok with wild speculations based on your "fudging" of data you go back on ignore.

  9. #84
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,080


    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    That's it: when you run amok with wild speculations based on your "fudging" of data you go back on ignore.
    ......

    Do you know how close the Upper Euphrates and North Levant are? Besides, I had seen some evidence suggesting a Euphratean origin of Cardial ware rather than Levant neolithic, so it wasn't me completely making it up

  10. #85
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,080


    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    That's it: when you run amok with wild speculations based on your "fudging" of data you go back on ignore.
    If you want to be so picky, here you go:

    https://www.academia.edu/404527/Mezr...hic_Life_Style

    Mezraa Teleilat is in the Upper Euphrates, so this suggests a Euphratean origin of Cardial ware - far to the East of the ancestors of EEF and explaining Iran_N in the Italian Neolithic

  11. #86
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered10000 Experience Points
    Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    2,232
    Points
    15,486
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,486, Level: 37
    Level completed: 80%, Points required for next Level: 164
    Overall activity: 33.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak”

    Epictetus

  12. #87
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,624
    Points
    24,107
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,107, Level: 47
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 443
    Overall activity: 35.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Not sure what I need more, sleep or this study! I don't really expect any surprises, but it would be interesting to see when J2 arrived (I'm guessing 3rd millennium BCE with an expansion of warlike elites from West Asia; I think the spread of J2 during this period and the previous millennium is related to the spread of the Anatolian and Gutian branches of IE (so I actually think Minoan, Etruscan etc. are IE, and that Kura-Araxian J2 should be seen as equally IE as R1b and R1a)), and whether there was some very early R1b-L51 in the South (Gaudo culture etc.) as I'd guess that to be the case.

    Z2103 and J2 (obviously only specific branches of J2a and J2b, as J2 is old) have such a magnificent modern-day correlation that I'm puzzled at the lack of J2 in Yamnaya.

    Just look at this:





    I am fully convinced that R1b-M269 was in the Middle East at least as early as the 8.2 ky event, and I am also fully convinced in a Paleolithic diversification of R1 in the Zarzian culture (which has clear links to the Epigravettian). Everything between that, I'm still trying to work out. At the moment, I'm thinking R1b-P297 expanded at the very beginning of the Holocene from the Zagros to the Volga-Urals via the Caspian region, and that R1b-M269 moved back down to somewhere in the Northern Middle East perhaps as a result of the 8.2 ky event, but I'm changing my mind a lot. I definitely think R1b-M269 diversified around the Northern Middle East, though, just not sure whether early R1b-M269 originated there or not.
    There's no way Etruscan was IE. Only very fringe and mostly amateur people have ever proposed that. There are sufficient inscriptions to evaluate if Etruscan was IE, let alone related to Hittite, which is also fairly well known from inscriptions. Not everything revolved around IE-speaking peoples. Also, where did you take the idea that Gutians were definitely IE? Not from concrete evidences of linguistics or genetics AFAIK, but I know some people have speculated about that before.

  13. #88
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,624
    Points
    24,107
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,107, Level: 47
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 443
    Overall activity: 35.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Why were they different genetically from most of the population then? The idea that they were migrants from elsewhere, yet remained a separate group throughout the Iron Age and Classical period makes no sense to me without them being a been a class of their own - if not elites, at least cultural conservatives.
    Who told you it's exactly the same people that remained a separate group throughout the Iron Age and Classical period, and not different individuals who had come in different times and places from the same regions or regions that had a very similar autosomal makeup? I think that's a bit of wishful thinking. That's what's just as likely if not even much more so, especially if Italy - as it seems from historical documents - had a lot of cultural and economic interaction. Is there anything to suggest that the North Italian-like people in the later periods were local descendants of the very same people with similar autosomal makeup who lived in the earlier period? I don't think the study can even be as specific as that. If ancient Rome had strictly endogamous castes of an ethnic character, not just family clans (gens​) and the like, we'd know it from their extensive documents about themselves.

  14. #89
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    I'd guess the Etruscans were Minoan-like - I think both were Y DNA J-rich of the Anatolian branch that spread across the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age. The Italics, though, ultimately surely derive their ancestry from the Steppe Bell Beakers - though, as mentioned, they only had Northern Italian levels of Steppe. In the early stages of Italic development in Northern Italy, I'd guess they were more Swiss-like though.
    As for Iran_N - Moots told me herself that it spread BEFORE the Copper Age. I'm now 100% sure, in my mind at least, that this is from the Cardium Pottery culture, which has roots around the Upper Euphrates (rather than the typical 1st wave Balkan EEFs, who derive from Western and Central Anatolia). These EEFs probably entered Italy at some point after Cardium Pottery folk, accounting for the dilution in Iran_N ancestry. I still think Iran_N would have spread across the Mediterranean with copper metallurgy, but perhaps (as this would have been an elite migration for sure) it didn't have much of an impact genetically.
    Etruscans where neither minoan type nor of any Anatolian types..........this fake history they came from lydia in Anatolia would mean they had to have spoken Luwian, since
    Carian, Lycian, Lydian and Milyan (also known as Lycian B or Lycian II) – are now usually identified as related to Luwian
    and scholars know how to read Luwian, so why can they not then read etruscan
    luwian is older than any etruscan known people until its demise in 600BC
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  15. #90
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,624
    Points
    24,107
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,107, Level: 47
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 443
    Overall activity: 35.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    How was there not an increase in Steppe ancestry (EHG as a tracer for this) in the Early Bronze Age? From what he said, it seems like this ancestry only arrived in the Iron Age - what?!

    It would be great to know if this Bronze Age increase in WHG and EEF was more pronounced in terms of WHG or in terms of EEF. The Beaker groups in Central Europe were very WHG rich (compared to, say, the more obvious Steppe groups like CWC), so perhaps this is from a theoretical pre-Steppe admixed Bell Beaker group. The other alternative is that Iran_N was an elite element in the Chalcolithic, and that during the Early Bronze Age this had been diluted with the EEF natives. Still, I would have expected some EHG if this is Bronze Age. Perhaps the arrival of U152 Beaker folk was initially limited to Northern Italy?
    But these results only speak for the genetic makeup of BA and IA Central Italy or more specifically around Latium, isn't that so? Why would we necessarily expect Indo-Europeans and their steppe ancestry to have arrived in that specific region in the BA and not in the IA? Rome was very close to Etruscan-speaking areas and for centuries it and other Latin cities seem to have been at best secondary to Etruscan towns. It's totally possible in my opinion that Italic, more specifically Latino-Faslican people were the first Indo-Europeans to settle in large numbers there and that could have happened not too long before the foundation of Rome in 753 B.C. Or am I speaking something contrary to the archaeological and linguistic evidences for central-western Italy?

  16. #91
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,080


    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    There's no way Etruscan was IE. Only very fringe and mostly amateur people have ever proposed that. There are sufficient inscriptions to evaluate if Etruscan was IE, let alone related to Hittite, which is also fairly well known from inscriptions. Not everything revolved around IE-speaking peoples. Also, where did you take the idea that Gutians were definitely IE? Not from concrete evidences of linguistics or genetics AFAIK, but I know some people have speculated about that before.
    The Gutian IE is a best-guess thing (only hypothesis I've seen is some early relation to Tocharian, not sure how accurate that is), but it isn't important anyway. As for Etruscans and Minoans being Anatolian-like - I'm sticking by that. It doesn't seem to be an amateur-only hypothesis even if not consensus, and the description of the spread of warlike elites across the Aegean and beyond in this paper, as well as obvious parallels to Kura-Araxes and the spread of major CHG, seals it for me:


    "
    “DALL’ARMELLINA, Vittoria Ca'Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanistic Studies, Sciences of Antiquity Images of a New Aristocracy – A koinè of symbols and cultural values in the Caucasus, Anatolia and Aegean during the Bronze Age The paper will present the preliminary results of the author's PhD project, which deals with the diffusion between the Southern Caucasus, Anatolia, the Aegean Islands, Crete and Mainland Greece, in the course of the Bronze Age, of selected types of insignia dignitatis. These apparently reflect the birth of a new ruling elite that maintains its power through military exercise, and is also associated to the spread of particular funerary customs (e.g. funerary burrows and other elite burial types) mainly. It becomes increasingly clear that these northern portions of the Near East share some cultural specificities witch set them apart from the better known traditions of Mesopotamia and the SyroLevantine region. A series of characteristics items, mainly weapons but also parade standards, and different types of ornaments, spread in this northern areas. They are strongly linked to a warlike symbolism, and characterise a warrior aristocracy whose concept apparently originated and developed between the Caucasus and Anatolia and spread from there toward mainland Europe, in particular towards the Aegean area. In the presentation, these concepts will be illustrated by the distribution of selected categories of items."


    So basically, I think Kura-Araxes is the origin of Anatolian, Gutian, Minoan/Pelasgian and Tyrsenian. Minoan has really strong evidence linking it to Anatolian from what I've seen at the very least.

  17. #92
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,624
    Points
    24,107
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,107, Level: 47
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 443
    Overall activity: 35.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    Etruscans where neither minoan type nor of any Anatolian types..........this fake history they came from lydia in Anatolia would mean they had to have spoken Luwian, since
    Carian, Lycian, Lydian and Milyan (also known as Lycian B or Lycian II) – are now usually identified as related to Luwian
    and scholars know how to read Luwian, so why can they not then read etruscan
    luwian is older than any etruscan known people until its demise in 600BC
    Well, they can read Etruscan, but the fact is that it is not IE far less Anatolian IE. The basic vocabulary, the syntax, morphology, anything has nothing to do with IE. At best it could have very ancient IE or PIE influence. Examples:

    mother - ati
    brother - ruva
    daughter - sech
    son - clan
    water - thi, neri
    sky - falatu
    land - pes

    Numbers:

    1. θu
    2. zal
    3. ci
    4. śa
    5. maχ
    6. huθ
    7. semφ
    8. cezp
    9. nurφ
    10. śar
    Last edited by Ygorcs; 08-02-19 at 07:53.

  18. #93
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,624
    Points
    24,107
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,107, Level: 47
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 443
    Overall activity: 35.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Okay, so the Iran_N appears at the START of the Neolithic in Italy - I confirmed it with Moots herself. Now I'm confused.

    I can't say that's true, but didn't Peloponnese Greek Neolithic already have some Iran_N? Also, let's not overestimate that contribution, it was surely much less than EEF and may have arrived already heavily mixed with ANF or EEF in Italy.

  19. #94
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,624
    Points
    24,107
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,107, Level: 47
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 443
    Overall activity: 35.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    The Gutian IE is a best-guess thing (only hypothesis I've seen is some early relation to Tocharian, not sure how accurate that is), but it isn't important anyway. As for Etruscans and Minoans being Anatolian-like - I'm sticking by that. It doesn't seem to be an amateur-only hypothesis even if not consensus, and the description of the spread of warlike elites across the Aegean and beyond in this paper, as well as obvious parallels to Kura-Araxes and the spread of major CHG, seals it for me:


    "
    “DALL’ARMELLINA, Vittoria Ca'Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanistic Studies, Sciences of Antiquity Images of a New Aristocracy – A koinè of symbols and cultural values in the Caucasus, Anatolia and Aegean during the Bronze Age The paper will present the preliminary results of the author's PhD project, which deals with the diffusion between the Southern Caucasus, Anatolia, the Aegean Islands, Crete and Mainland Greece, in the course of the Bronze Age, of selected types of insignia dignitatis. These apparently reflect the birth of a new ruling elite that maintains its power through military exercise, and is also associated to the spread of particular funerary customs (e.g. funerary burrows and other elite burial types) mainly. It becomes increasingly clear that these northern portions of the Near East share some cultural specificities witch set them apart from the better known traditions of Mesopotamia and the SyroLevantine region. A series of characteristics items, mainly weapons but also parade standards, and different types of ornaments, spread in this northern areas. They are strongly linked to a warlike symbolism, and characterise a warrior aristocracy whose concept apparently originated and developed between the Caucasus and Anatolia and spread from there toward mainland Europe, in particular towards the Aegean area. In the presentation, these concepts will be illustrated by the distribution of selected categories of items."


    So basically, I think Kura-Araxes is the origin of Anatolian, Gutian, Minoan/Pelasgian and Tyrsenian. Minoan has really strong evidence linking it to Anatolian from what I've seen at the very least.
    None of that matters. Linguistically Etruscan is not IE and that's it. We have the language to see and analyze it, it's definitely not Anatolian and it could be at best described as a distantly related para-IE, but even that is a stretch that's mostly a wild speculation and nothing else. The hypothesis is the one that needs to adjust to the evidences, not the other way around.

    As for Minoan, if it were really strongly similar to Hittite or Luwian it probably would've been deciphered by now. Additionally Eteocretan, which is the best candidate for a descendant of Minoan, has not been successfully interpreted as related to any other IE language.

    It's like European colonialism: it didn't spread just one language or one language family. Ditto for a generspread of warlike elites across the Aegean and beyond in association with spread of major CHG. Look at the Anatolia/Caucasus in the modern era and add to the native language families there the Bronze Age language families we know once existed there. It is and was very multilingual even when genetically they might've become similar in some cultural ways (particular those pertaining to the state, war, economy, elite status symbols - such things are very easily borrowed by any people who wants to survive and preferably thrive while their neighbors adopt the same innovations. Even today that pattern is still totally the same), and they even might have spread similar admixtures (for example, higher amounts of CHG). That does not mean they were ethnically and linguistically homogeneous, though.

    Quite on the contrary, the evidence points to the opposite: the many language families we see there (and now) don't seem to have come from very remote lands, the land just seems to have not been thoroughly IE (let alone necessarily Anatolian/Proto-Anatolian) at all since the Bronze Age. For your hypothesis to make some sense, Anatolian and Tyrsenian had to derive from a much older culture than Kura-Araxes and had to have remained geographically separated for a lot longer time in order to explain such a huge linguistic differentiation.

    As for Gutians, I just think that you, I and everyone else have too little information to speculate about their language or even ethnic and genetic origins. The "Tocharian hypothesis" is widely rejected mostly because it relied on a couple of "sound-alikes" comparing a late 3rd millennium BC language (Gutian) to an Early Medieval language (Tocharian - I'm not sure if A or B) some 2500 years later. That's totally pseudoscientific. Additionally, considering the very early attestation of the names of several Gutian kings (~2200 B.C.), Gutian would be supposed to be a very archaic IE language still without too much linguistic divergence from the reconstructed PIE spoken only some 1000-2000 years before. Nonetheless, all the names of Gutian kings in the Sumerian list cannot be interpreted and deciphered easily (or difficultly, for that matter) as deriving from PIE roots. It's possible, but unlikely it was IE.

  20. #95
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,080


    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I can't say that's true, but didn't Peloponnese Greek Neolithic already have some Iran_N? Also, let's not overestimate that contribution, it was surely much less than EEF and may have arrived already heavily mixed with ANF or EEF in Italy.
    According to the guy who reported this all on anthrogenica, it was a pretty decent chunk of Iran_N. Suggests a movement of farmers into Italy from further East than the farmers that entered the Balkans.

  21. #96
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,080


    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    None of that matters. Linguistically Etruscan is not IE and that's it. We have the language to see and analyze it, it's definitely not Anatolian and it could be at best described as para-IE, but even that is a stretch that's mostly a wild speculation and nothing else. The hypothesis is the one that needs to adjust to the evidences, not the other way around.

    As for Minoan, if it were really strongly similar to Hittite or Luwian it probably would've been deciphered by now. Additionally Eteocretan, which is the best candidate for a descendant of Minoan, has not been successfully interpreted as related to any other IE language.

    It's like European colonialism: it didn't spread just one language or one language family. Ditto for a generspread of warlike elites across the Aegean and beyond in association with spread of major CHG. Look at the Anatolia/Caucasus in the modern era and add to the native language families there the Bronze Age language families we know once existed there. It is and was very multilingual even when genetically they might've become similar in some cultural ways (particular those pertaining to the state, war, economy, elite status symbols - such things are very easily borrowed by any people who wants to survive and preferably thrive while their neighbors adopt the same innovations. Even today that pattern is still totally the same), and they even might have spread similar admixtures (for example, higher amounts of CHG). That does not mean they were ethnically and linguistically homogeneous, though.
    True, but I tend to avoid looking at things as having multiple origins, so I'm inclined to believe there was only one group that expanded out of the Southern Caucasus. That group, presumably CHG and Y DNA J-rich, is clearly being linked to Anatolian, and we see they later arrived on Crete (Minoan study). It appears like they expanded to Italy too, from this recent talk. So I'm still betting on at least Minoan being IE. I'm not a linguist, though.

  22. #97
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    790
    Points
    10,122
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,122, Level: 30
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 428
    Overall activity: 32.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Why were they different genetically from most of the population then? The idea that they were migrants from elsewhere, yet remained a separate group throughout the Iron Age and Classical period makes no sense to me without them being a been a class of their own - if not elites, at least cultural conservatives.
    It's pretty obvious when you look at the archaeological context in Iron Age Italy. There are basically two options now that we have rough idea about Roman DNA:

    1. the northern group is representative of the Italic invaders who were numerically inferior and imposed their language on the southern group.

    2. the northern group is comprised by Etruscans and individuals with Etruscan admixture who were eventually replaced by the Italic speaking southern group.

    I strongly favor #2, but to figure it out we need tribal Italic samples. The Latins by the time of their first attestation had completely adopted Etruscan material culture.

    Personally I never really doubted the findings of the paper that saw evidence of strong northern admixture in the IA Etruscans. They had their origins in the Alpine region, probably in Austria or Bavaria close to their Rhaetian cousins.

  23. #98
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,080


    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    It's pretty obvious when you look at the archaeological context in Iron Age Italy. There are basically two options now that we have rough idea about Roman DNA:

    1. the northern group is representative of the Italic invaders who were numerically inferior and imposed their language on the southern group.

    2. the northern group is comprised by Etruscans and individuals with Etruscan admixture who were eventually replaced by the Italic speaking southern group.

    I strongly favor #2, but to figure it out we need tribal Italic samples. The Latins by the time of their first attestation had completely adopted Etruscan material culture.

    Personally I never really doubted the findings of the paper that saw evidence of strong northern admixture in the IA Etruscans. They had their origins in the Alpine region, probably in Austria or Bavaria close to their Rhaetian cousins.
    The point about Rhaetian is interesting, I of course knew the relationship but now I think about it there doesn't seem to be any archaeological movement of a population from Italy into the Alps. Moreover, it appears that Rhaetian is more archaic than Etruscan in the Tyrsenian hypothesis. So you may have just changed my mind. In any case, I will never believe Etruscan dates back to the Italian Neolithic, so must be from some foreign influence. When did all the Y DNA J2 arrive in Italy then if not with Tyrsenians?

  24. #99
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,080


    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: United Kingdom



    The links between the Rhaetians and Etruscans are surely related to the Brenner pass based on the theoretical distribution of Rhaetic. Interestingly enough, archaeologically, that would suggest a Bell Beaker origin. I find that hard to believe though - basically I'm really confused if that isn't obvious enough. I still think Minoan is related to Anatolian, and the more I Google the more likely it seems.

  25. #100
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    60
    Points
    1,765
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,765, Level: 11
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 85
    Overall activity: 14.0%


    Country: USA - New York



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    My sources in the occult world, those who still do Etruscan magic and say they know Etruscan history passed down, tell the Etruscans were originally from Iran and traveled to SW Anatolia, before finally settling in Tuscany and surrounding areas. Many assume these settlers were Js, perhaps some Gs, Ts, Ls and others. Not R dominant.

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •